Posts Tagged ‘Republican

20
Jul
14

What Political Lean Will Today’s Kids Have?

I am the oldest kid in my family. On my mom’s side I am the oldest cousin too. On the “big two” subjects that will surely ruffle feathers, religion and politics, I have been all over the board and never fit neatly into any one group. Furthermore, I’ve openly discussed these things despite my mother’s advice to keep those subjects off the radar. With that said to some people they know that I am political, or at least politically-minded. I have been surprised to hear so many people discuss their political beliefs with me that I felt were right-leaning. Or more specifically, Libertarian-leaning. Maybe the next generation’s political beliefs are swinging back towards Conservatism. More interesting is what these kids use to judge their beliefs – how big of a role do their parents, demographic groups, or media play in making those decisions?

The conclusion of the article to me is interesting to me. It states, “What if the Republican party starts to promote candidates who simply can’t be painted as sexually repressive, oil-crazed religious freaks?” I find this interesting because I’ve long since said that the GOP needs to ditch its religious cloak. Religious affiliation is the number one complaint I hear for people who I think are clearly Republicans but vote Democrat.

Could the next generation of Republicans already be here? by Kyle Smith.

There’s probably never been a time when humanity wasn’t collectively in a torment and uproar about what its young folk were up to. (Gur to Urp, 10,000 B.C.: “Can you believe how short the girls are wearing their bearskins these days?”)

But in contrast with our image of decadent, self-centered, pleasure-craving youth, in many ways today’s youngsters are throwbacks — spurning drugs, crime and disorder, being sexually responsible and making sound choices about education. They might be the least disaffected, least rebellious kids since the Kennedy years. And that might have surprising political implications down the road.

A July 12 Economist piece reviewed some surprising data, finding that (contrary to popular belief) teen drinking and binge drinking have fallen sharply in recent years. The percentage of high-school seniors who have ever taken alcohol, for instance, fell from 80% to 71% from 2000 to 2010. In 1980, that figure was 93%. Asked whether they’d had a drink in the last 30 days, only 41% said yes in 2010. In 2000, it was 50% and in 1980, 72%. Similarly, the teen pregnancy rate is slightly more than half what it was in the mid-1990s, and teens are waiting longer to have sex than they did then.

Violent-crime arrests for people from 10 to 24 are half what they were in 1995 (for males) and down 40% for females. Juvenile incarceration is at its lowest rate since 1975. Teen smoking peaked around 1997 and is now, at an all-time low of 17%, less than half of what it was then. (Pot use is an exception to the trend: 23% of high-school seniors regularly get high. But weed is still less widely used than it was in the 1970s, or even in 1999, when 26.7% reported regular use.)

What’s behind all these surprising numbers? I can’t say, but it’s hard not to notice that a decline in destructive behavior associated with peer pressure has happened at the same moment that the US became a fully wired nation.

Now that broadband access is nearly universal — 78% of homes, and that’s not counting all the schools and library and Wi-Fi hotspot connections available to most kids with minimal effort — restless youth don’t have to go along with whatever the local knuckleheads are up to.

They can find their community of likeminded souls online, and an unintended consequence of their tinkering with YouTube videos or playing “Call of Duty” with a buddy in Mexico City, they’re staying in. As a frustrated barman in England, where pubs have been closing in huge numbers, put it to The Economist, “Kids these days just want to live in their f- – – ing own little worlds in their bedrooms watching Netflix and becoming obese.” That sounds right, but at least no one ever got pregnant from eating Cheetos.

How are young people turning out politically? They’re liberal Democrats . . . who sometimes sound an awful lot like conservative Republicans.

According to a Pew survey, the “next-generation left” has a huge, generational disagreement with older, traditional left-liberals. Among the older liberals, for instance, 83% identify “circumstances” as the cause of poverty. Nexties are almost evenly split on this, with 47% blaming circumstances and 42% blaming “lack of effort.”

Fifty-six percent of the older Democrats think Wall Street does more harm than good, whereas 56% of the younger ones think the reverse. When asked whether blacks are primarily responsible for their condition or victims of discrimination, 80% of the older liberals said discrimination. Sixty-eight percent of the nexties said blacks are mostly responsible for their status, with only 19% blaming discrimination.

Less surprisingly, next-generation liberals tilt hugely left on social issues, and this, they say, is the reason they vote Democrat, in many cases against their stated economic beliefs. A commenter on a New York Times piece on the Pew survey ticked off a list of economic beliefs that placed him to the right of center, then concluded, “The Democrats hold onto us only because of the Republic[an] obsession with religion, sexual repression and environmental denial.”

Another way to spin that idea is that the Democrats hold onto young voters because of the media’s successful bid to paint Republicans as obsessed with these things. (Or was 2001-2009 America a Puritan theocracy?)

Libertarians (most notable among them the ever-hopeful crew over at Reason magazine) are forever claiming that their moment is about to arrive. They’ve never been right before, but their case is starting to look more compelling.

The gay-marriage debate is winding down and may be over by 2016. Some Republicans are outflanking the Hobby Lobby decision, and making a huge step in a libertarian direction, by calling for over-the-counter birth control. What if the Republican party starts to promote candidates who simply can’t be painted as sexually repressive, oil-crazed religious freaks?

07
Nov
12

2012 Election Results From a Conservative Libertarian in Arizona

The dust isn’t 100% settled but I’ll go ahead and say it – congratulations to Barack Obama for his 2012 American Presidential win. Unfortunately, I can’t go so far as to say congratulations to Obama for winning as I can say congratulations to the Republicans for losing it. The GOP lost this race on their own terms and I unfortunately they seemingly didn’t learn from 2008 with John McCain.

The results are fairly similar between 2008 and 2012. In 2008 Obama won 362 electorial votes with McCain winning 176 (69,456,897 vs 59,934,814popular votes – 52.9% vs 45.7%, link). In 2012 Obama won 303 electorial votes with Romney winning 206 (54,744,018 vs 53,685,409 popular votes – 49.7% vs 48.8%, link). A 3.2% decrease for Obama and a 3.1% increase for the GOP is a pretty trivial number in my opinion as it swings this much every year.

EDIT: According to the final results Barack H. Obama received 332 electorial votes and Willard Mitt Romney received 206 electorial votes (65,899,625 vs 60,928,981 popular, 51.02% vs 47.18%, link). Furthermore Gary Johnson received 1,275,821 popular (0.99%), Jill Stein with 469,500 (0.36%), and other with 580,631 (0.45%). This reinforces my claim that the GOP lost fair-and-square – that if all people who voted for 3rd parties voted with the GOP that Obama still would have won the election.

For the past two years the GOP has nominated a moderate Conservative – for all intensive purposes in my mind, a Socialist-lite. As Jed Babbin said in an article written in in 2008 of John Mcain, “In nuclear physics, every subatomic particle has an opposite. When they collide, they combine to produce another particle that resembles neither. McCain is the political antimatter that collides with conservatism and produces ‘liberal republicanism'” (link). McCain has a fair Conservative scorecard from places like ACU but in reality he is just not a strong Conservative and certainly not a steadfast conservative who will stick by his guns hell or highwater. McCain couldn’t support lower taxes in 2001 and in 2008 he went soft on illegal immigration.

Fast forward four years and the GOP again nominated a bastion of Conservatism birthed into Mitt Romney. stated early in 2012 it was said by Conor Murphy, “[i]f Republicans wish to elect a conservative to the White House, then they would do well to avoid nominating the poster child of big-government Republicanism, Mitt Romney” (link). The biggest selling point of the GOP 2012 contender was “I’m not Barack Obama.” Of course, please forget that Romney supported TARP bailouts, signed anti-gun legislation, grandfathered Romneycare which was the design for Obamacare, prefer to keep the TSA, signed on Agenda-21 friendly legislation, and want to make the PATRIOT Act permanent – all items that are selling points not of a Conservative but rather of a big-government Socialist.

Arguably in recent history since the Reagan Revolution the Republican Party has shifted, not more to the right… but rather to the left – see Bob Dole, George W. Bush and John McCain. Likewise the Democratic Party has shifted to the left – see Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama. So in reality the entire political spectrum is shifting left and moves further away from truly representing us those on the right.
 
It should be painfully obvious at this juncture that because of this shift to the left the GOP is splitting and has been for some time. Those of us on the right want to remain on the right. We do not wish to comprimise and shift left with the GOP. I believe a fairly large faction of GOP and independents want to see the GOP shift right but it seems that the powers to be at the GOP prefer to move left to try to pander to the middle-ground independents and Blue-Dog Democrats.
 
If you watched the GOP debates you would be hard pressed to see many fundamental differences btween most of the candidates – save Ron Paul and Gary Johnson – than Barack Obama. All of them generally supported spying/detaining citizens under the PATRIOT Act or the NDAA, support bailouts, support spending money which they don’t have (Democrats want to spend it on “social programs,” while Republicans want to spend it on “safety”), support progressive taxation, support pre-emptive wars without Congressional declaration, support the war on drugs, support the Federal Reserve manipulating our currency, and last but not least they both do not support creating a viable plan that will reduce the debt.
 
I admit, I am happy that Obama won. America may not survive in one piece as she stands now but maybe this isn’t such a bad thing. Let me explain. Any time a President sits the opposing party becomes the watch-dog opposition. They watch their every move and complain and bitch to try to stop them. For many of us in America today Obama is the most Left-winged President we’ve had. Because of this we’ve become more watchful and aware fo what our politicians are doing. In some sense, we’ve held them more accountable and made them squirm. Beginning in 2007-2008 the Tea Party and the Ron Paul rEVOLution gained immense popularity. These became the watch-dog groups to which many Americans now subscribe to. Since Obama has a second term such groups will be in overdrive watching his every move. Hopefully the people who are concerned about America will realize that they must watch and they must act. If they act then they have the chance to push America back to the right side of the political spectrum.
 
I know that some people will argue that it would have been better to chance the 2012 election and let Romney sit but I say that it would have hurt America’s chance to push the GOP back to the right. As it stands now the GOP has two elections that it lost due to them not picking someone Conservative enough. For 2016 they now have the chance to continue on their path and probably lose another election or swing back to the right and pick up the disenfranchized people on the right – forget the no-man’s land in the middle of the political spectrum as those people will probably willy-nilly decide on what direction they want to vote at the last minute – it’s hard to pander to such a group so why is the gOP trying? Maybe there is even a chance that if those middle-moderates see the GOP return to a principled stance of small-government and true fiscal responsibility (not a fiscal responsibility that says no big spending to social programs but a big fat yes to abhorent military spending) that they will be more appealing to vote for. As of now the GOP, even to me who leans Right, seems like a desperate greyhound dog trying to catch a mechanical rabbit on a track and it’s too ignorant to know that it never will catch it… and that isn’t a pretty sight to many voters. At least the Democratic party seems to stand up and say with conviction that it will do everything that it can to make the world more fair and to create their Utopia.
 
Or maybe Obama will destroy America. Maybe he will drive us straight into the ground of blasé Socialism. It is my hope that if it comes to that then there will be enough of us willing to fight for a new revival – a new America that our Founding Father’s would be proud of where individualism reigns instead of collectivism.
 
It is my hopes that because people are more involved with politics today than I’ve ever seen they start to realize that We The People need to keep our politicians in check. The power of laws needs to be returned to the Congress, to where we can voice our opinions of where we want to take this country every two years in the House and every 4 in the Senate. We can’t sit around and say that “my Congressperson is doing great” and then turn around and say that Congress is doing a horrible job – this makes no sense. We need to make the Congress do it’s job – they need to threaten impeachment when it is warranted and question the Executive branch when it supercedes its power with items such as Executive Orders. Then when the President wants to appoint a puppet in the Supreme Court, the Congress needs to stand up and block that nomination in favor of someone who will judge blindly and without partisanship. But as of now, the Congress generally sits around and does nothing except ceede their power elsewhere and certainly never challenges the Executive branch.
 
In any case, I can only see the second term of Obama as being a good thing for us in the long run. Make no mistake about it, I’m not excited about how the next four years will be for us… if we even have another four years. However, I think that if we want to truly prosper then Obama part two is the best thing that could have happened to us.
01
Sep
12

Tired of simply voting for the lesser of two evils?

So you don’t like Romney… and you don’t like Obama. Do you just toss a dice to pick your candidate? Not vote? Vote the “lesser of two evils”? Or do you vote your conscience for whoever matches you best?

I’m going to argue here that the reason we are where we are is because we have repeatedly failed to vote our consciences. Instead, we vote for someone that we, many times, are only lukewarm about. So we compromise, sometimes on very big and important issues. With millions of dollars being raised and spent on campaigning it seems only logical to inquire if elections are even fair anymore… or if they are bought.

I say it’s time to stop playing political games and vote for who best matches you instead of voting for someone who only kinda-sorta matches your beliefs. To help you find out what candidate best matches you please take this test and see who you align with the most. If you don’t know the answer to something, then skip that question.

26
Apr
11

Ron Paul is running in 2012!

Ron Paul is running in 2012! Original here.

Rep. Ron Paul, the Texas Republican known for his staunch libertarian views, announced today he’s forming a presidential exploratory committee.

 This marks Paul’s third bid for the presidency. He first ran in 1988 and again in 2008, winning a small but enthusiastic group of supporters among the GOP electorate.

Part of Paul’s fervent support in 2008 was grounded in college-aged voters, a constituency that also largely favored Barack Obama. In this campaign, the 75-year-old Paul said today, Mr. Obama won’t be able to hang on to the youth vote.

 “I think that Obama will not be able to hang on to that enthusiasm of the young people because of what’s happened in the last couple years,” Paul said in Des Moines, Iowa, after his exploratory committee was announced.

 The financial crisis, the bloated deficit and the ongoing wars make the libertarian views Paul is known for — such as his anti-interventionist foreign policy and his antipathy toward the Federal Reserve — even more relevant than in 2008, Paul suggested.

 “I believe there are literally millions of more people now concerned about the very things I talked about four years ago,” he said, such as “the excessive spending, the entitlement system, the foreign policy, as well as the monetary system.”

 “If you want to curtail spending… you can’t do it without addressing the inflationary system,” continued Paul, who chairs a House subcommittee on domestic monetary policy. “Congress does not have to act responsibly… they’ve resorted to printing out money.”

 Even as the issues central to Paul’s campaign receive greater focus, some consider Paul’s candidacy a longshot, given that several of his policy positions do not align with those of the Republican party. Still, it’s likely he’ll at least play a strong role in shaping the course the Republican primary debate.

 That impact of Paul’s candidacy in the primaries could also be reinforced by former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson’s candidacy. Johnson also holds largely libertarian views and is often compared to Paul.

 Paul’s enthusiastic support base made it clear at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference that they are still going strong. College Republicans turned out in droves at the conference, and Paul won the straw poll.

 Jesse Benton, an aide to Paul, told Hotsheet earlier this month that Paul’s political action committee LibertyPAC has already raised more than $1.2 million and that “he has the structure in place to hit the ground running if he makes the decision to run.”

 With an exploratory committee, Paul can raise more funds specifically for parts of his 2012 campaign. Other candidates who have formed exploratory committees include former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

 Paul said today that the formation of his exploratory committee does not mean he is fully the race; he said he is likely to determine whether to commit to the race by next month.

25
Apr
11

Why 2012 Will Be Better for Ron Paul

Original here.

It’s just obvious that in the last four years, since the last time Ron Paul ran for President, the ideological center of gravity in the GOP — and the whole country for that matter — has shifted a lot closer to Ron Paul’s position.

In 2008, Paul ran a cult campaign as a libertarian, anti-Fed, anti-war Republican.

At the time, nobody in the GOP really cared about the Fed, and for the most part, Bush’s wars enjoyed broad support.

Today they’re Obama’s wars, and the Fed is one of the most disliked institutions around, taking daily abuse even from mainstream outlets like CNBC.

It’s inconceivable to think that in the GOP primary, candidates won’t be asked for their position on Bernanke, quantitative easing, the role of the dollar, and of all the candidates, only Ron Paul has made a career on all these issues. In fact, after decades fighting his fight, he must be somewhat shocked that in just the last few years, his ideology has become so popular (or maybe he’s shocked that it took so long).

In 2008, the GOP primary was dominated by Serious candidates like Mitt Romney and John McCain and Fred Thompson and even Rudy Giuliani. They were content to basically ignore what Ron Paul had to say. This time, they’ll be fighting on his turf.

08
Mar
11

The Return of the Balanced Budget Amendment

“The balanced budget amendment has good aspects, but it is simply not good enough in dealing with fundamental constitutional change for our country.” And thus with that 23-word statement in 1997, Democrat Sen. Robert Torricelli of New Jersey sunk conservative spirits. No longer did the U.S. Senate have the two-thirds it needed to enshrine a fundamental principle of governing into the highest law of the land: that politicians should pay for what they spend.

Controversial, I know. Pfft.

Due to Democrat Torricelli’s jellyfish backbone, the 1997 Balanced Budget Amendment fell one vote short of hitting the needed threshold, which was the same margin of failure as just one year before. And liberals couldnt have been happier. Their penchant for obligating the taxpayers of tomorrow to pay for the spending binges of today remained unbroken.

Not that the dissenting senators worded their objections that way. Nope. To Vermont’s incorrigible leftist Sen. Patrick Leahy, inserting a mechanism into the Constitution that would enable our government’s books to mirror the realities American businesses and families face daily was “bumper sticker politics” and “sloganeering.” The way toward rectifying Uncle Sam’s balance sheet was, according to Leahy, “political courage,” not tinkering with the Constitution. Thirty-three of Leahy’s Democratic colleagues agreed.

Mind-Boggling Debt

Of course, by “political courage,” Leahy didnt mean reforming our insolvent entitlement systems or abolishing many of the improvident, senseless, and unconstitutional government bureaucracies and programs in existence. Nah. He meant tax increases on the rich. You know the drill, people.

Prescience, however, is not a valued commodity in Washington, D.C., as lawmakers pursue policies that are in the best interest of their reelection, not of the republic.

When the balanced budget amendment failed in 1997, the federal deficit stood at just $22 billion and the national debt hovered around 5.5 trillion — meager compared with today’s obscene figures, where we have a deficit topping $1.6 trillion this year alone accompanied by a mind-boggling debt of $14 trillion and growing.

To put our debt in perspective, Kobe Bryant makes $25 million playing for the Los Angeles Lakers. Any guesses on how many seasons Kobe would have to play in order to pay off today’s national debt? How about a whopping 560,000. That’s chilling, and quite frankly, incomprehensible.

Heck, we’ve run deficits in 54 of the last 60 years, as the National Taxpayer Union points out. That’s a figure that would make Keynes himself blink.

Ironically, Leahy was on the right track when he spoke of the need for political courage. This country desperately needs it, but it must manifest itself in the form of politicians who will defend the property rights of all Americans as opposed to the current lawmaking that treats this nation’s treasury as a personal ATM card.

The brute political courage we need is for politicians to plug Congress’s desire to ransack the appropriations process to engineer winners and losers in the marketplace and thus perpetuate a class of constituents whose inspiration to vote is driven by keeping the government gravy train on a track straight to their bank accounts.

Thanks to the midterm elections, the time for real political courage is now: The balanced budget amendment is making a comeback thanks to one veteran and one freshman senator.

“The people are calling for it. They are clamoring for it. They’re demanding it,” said newly elected Utah Sen. Mike Lee, who has 19 of his colleagues, including Jim DeMint and Rand Paul, rallying in support of his balanced budget amendment. “The American people overwhelmingly demand it, and if members of Congress value their jobs, they are going to vote for it,” he told Human Events in an exclusive interview.

Lee’s a Tea Party faithful who believes his job boils down to this bare-bones task: produce a government in the original mold of the Constitution, which is to say, one whose legislative reach is restricted and clearly defined. In other words, a federal government that looks absolutely nothing like what we have today.

Opportune Time Needed

Lee is so intent on getting a vote on his balanced budget amendment that he’s ready to filibuster the vote on whether or not to raise the debt ceiling as a tactical move.

“I can tell you that there are a lot of people who will not even consider it [a vote on the debt limit] without a balanced budget amendment first being proposed by Congress,” he said emphatically.

That’s certainly one approach — to hold the Senate hostage until real, austere statutory spending limits are adopted.

Utah’s senior Sen. Orrin Hatch doesnt see it that way. He’s looking for a vote on his balanced budget amendment too, but at a time believed to be the most opportune for passage. He hasn’t set firm timetables or made any strict demands.

“You have to have a bipartisan vote. You have to have a President that does care, and you have to have a setting in time where people can’t do anything but vote for it,” Hatch explained. “Right now, I don’t think we have that.”

If youre keeping score, the two senators from Utah both have competing balanced budget amendments floating around the Senate. In some ways, these jockeying amendments are a reflection of the Tea Party being a big kid on the block within the GOP.

Hatch, though, has been in the Senate for more than three decades, and is confident that he can get a balanced budget amendment through, which is why he’s taking a softer tone and insisting on waiting for the best moment to accomplish that.

And there’s something to be said for Hatch’s, well, “political,” approach. He’s shepherded the balanced budget amendment since 1982, when it was approved in the Senate, but torpedoed in the House by then-Speaker Tip O’Neill. And, as noted above, Hatch came painstakingly close twice in the Senate, both in 1996 and 1997.

“It’s every bit as difficult now, but it’s important that we bring it up and that we make all the strides we can,” he said.

The long-serving senator has 32 co-sponsors for his bill, including Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who is the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee.

When it comes down to it, both Hatch and Lee’s amendments have the same goal: ending profligate spending. In fact, as Nobel Laureate James Buchanan said, “The balanced budget norm is ultimately based on the acceptance of the classic principles of public finance, meaning that politicians shouldn’t spend more than they are willing to generate in tax revenues, except during periods of extreme and temporary emergency.”

Courts Involved

There are notable differences between the balanced budget amendments of Hatch and Lee, which we lay out in detail in the accompanying chart. While Mike Lee would restrict government spending to 18% of the gross domestic product (GDP), Hatch’s limits the figure to 20%. The 40-year average of tax receipts to GDP is around 18%, and Hatch knows this to be the case, but, to quote him, “If you get it too low, then you lose any chance with the Democrats.” And that, right there, encapsulates the internal friction the GOP will face with this budding Tea Party caucus going head-to-head with those who are willing to work with Democrats to deliver a final product.

But there’s more: Hatch’s proposal allows a simple majority vote to waive the balanced budget requirement when there’s a declaration of war or a designated military conflict, whereas Lee’s amendment provides no such exception. His threshold is much higher — a two-thirds vote.

When aren’t we in a military conflict? Lee quips.

There are also differences in the enforcement mechanism. Lee would grant standing in federal court to members of Congress if flagrant violations of the amendment occur. Hatch doesnt want the courts anywhere near enforcement, believing that public pressure placed on politicians instead provides the best form of accountability. Plus, “Who wants the courts doing it?” asked Hatch, alluding to their predilection toward activism.

Lee himself acknowledges that court intervention would be rare, but that the mere possibility that it could occur would add some additional incentive to Congress to make sure that it stays within their restrictions.

So far, so good.

But procedurally, how would our gargantuan budget ever get balanced? We’re dealing with trillions of dollars here, after all, a highly complex web of arithmetic. Congress must make a good-faith effort, say Hatch and Lee, to use the best possible projections of spending and receipts. Even with the accurate projections, economic conditions change throughout the year that may inhibit the Feds’ budget from being balanced, such as underestimating costs, which happens more frequently than not these days. If such a scenario plays out, and a fiscal year does end with a deficit, such spending cuts can be incorporated into the next fiscal year’s budget and make up the difference on the back end. Under both plans, by the way, two-thirds of Congress would be needed to raise taxes, so it would be more likely than not that the budget would be balanced by spending cuts, not tax increases.

Hey, were all game for that.

Naturally, getting a balanced budget amendment adopted as part of the Constitution will not be an easy feat. And not because of the numerical hurdles and multiple steps needed to get any amendment through the Constitution (the process should be difficult). It’s because Democrats will kick and scream over the severe cuts to spending that would ensue after the adoption of a balanced budget amendment.

Heck, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and his left-wing posse went apoplectic at a proposed spending reduction of $61 billion over the next seven months, calling it “extreme” and “draconian.” Just $61 billion. Thats it. To realize just how absurd such objections were, $61 billion is only a one-third of the money needed to cover the interest payments for U.S. bondholders this year alone.

Imagine when formal debate begins on the need to cut trillions in spending to rein in our deficit? Democrats may cut off their right arms in protest.

“This is exhibit A for why we need a balanced budget amendment,” responded Lee. “Politicians have reached the conclusion that they are the bad guys unless they say ‘yes’ to more spending, and it’s in light of that aspect of human nature that particularly tends to affect politicians, and that’s why we need a constitutional amendment.”

Unified GOP Caucus

“If this is going to get passed in the next two years,” says Hatch, “President Obama will have to step to the plate. Ultimately you’ll need presidential leadership because everybody knows that you’re not going to get spending under control until we take on entitlements as well. You cannot do it without presidential leadership.”

Remider: There’s always new presidential leadership come 2012. Well, we hope so anyway.

In the end, expect the GOP to have a unified caucus on a merger of the Hatch and Lee balanced budget amendments. It’s hard enough (almost impossible) to get one through when Democrats are in control of the Senate and the presidency, so the Republicans will need a unified front like they’ve had in the past.

A balanced budget amendment restricts the power of lawmakers, and that’s why the left despises it, and will work vigorously to defeat it. Get ready.

In the end, it is exactly what the Constitution needs. And esteemed economist Milton Friedman identified why two decades ago.

Said Friedman: “The amendment is very much in the spirit of the first 10 amendments — the Bill of Rights. Their purpose was to limit the government in order to free the people. Similarly, the purpose of the balanced-budget-and-tax-limitation amendment is to limit the government in order to free the people — this time from excessive taxation.”

If we cannot cut the Welfare State under these distressing economic conditions, then we’ll never do it. Now’s the time.

http://www.redstate.com/jasonmattera/2011/03/07/the-return-of-the-balanced-budget-amendment/

12
Apr
10

What is a Libertarian?

For some time now I’ve considered myself a Conservative Libertarian.




Quotes:

"We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth... For my part, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst; and to provide for it." - Patrick Henry

"Politicians and diapers both need to be changed, and for the same reason." - Anonymous

"Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it." - William Penn

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country" - Hermann Goering

"I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do this I keep on doing." - Romans 7:18-19

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." - Mark Twain

Categories